When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Italy

Super League Lessons, From Berlusconi To A Humble AC Milan Fan

Using pure economic power to reorder the world of soccer was clearly a bad idea, though not necessarily a new idea. Some reflections from a conflicted fan of one particular Italian super squad.

An AC Milan fan outside the iconic San Siro stadium in March 2020
An AC Milan fan outside the iconic San Siro stadium in March 2020
Alessio Perrone

MILAN — I'm too young to have witnessed the day my beloved football club — AC Milan — was first bought by a billionaire. And what a billionaire …

Believe it or not, despite their links to the Milan fashion industry and being the personal property for more than 30 years of media-tycoon-turned-troublesome-politician Silvio Berlusconi, the club has working-class roots. In the early days of the sport, the team's supporters were derided as casciavit, the Milanese dialect for "screwdriver," a mocking jab of the humble jobs many had.

When Berlusconi bought the foundering club in 1986, he was ready to pour his millions into the venture. He plundered the best players from the more successful Dutch clubs; flooded the club's coffers with cash; and awarded managers and players seemingly outrageous salaries. Some complained that Berlusconi ruined football, others complained he ruined Italy. I was more apt to agree with the latter, too busy basking in the successive Champions League trophies of my favorite team to worry about moralistic arguments in the field of football.

It was only the last step in a 30-year transformation that big money was inflicting on the beautiful game.

By the time Berlusconi sold the club in 2017, AC Milan was the husk of what he had created. Others richer than him bought other clubs — Chelsea ended up in the hands of Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch and personal friend of Vladimir Putin; Sheikh Mansour of the United Arab Emirates acquired Manchester City; Paris Saint-Germain was bought with Qatari cash.

Berlusconi posing with AC Milan jersy in Saronno , Italy, in May 2015 — Photo: Matteo Bazzi/ANSA/ZUMA

Berlusconi could no longer keep up. Towards the end of his tenure, he sought to cut salaries and costs. He didn't succeed and left a failing, languishing, heavily indebted club that hemorrhaged money.

Last week, as plans quickly imploded to create a soccer "Super League", which would have included my squad, plenty of column inches were filled with warnings about the wider significance of the event. Some noted how formerly working-class clubs had opened the gates to uncontrollable, unethical capital — like AC Milan, now owned by the vulture hedge fund Elliott Management, whose heroic deeds include bullying the Argentinian government after it defaulted on its public debt.

Few seemed to have learned the other lessons of the Berlusconi-AC Milan parable.

Others noted that it was only the last step in a 30-year transformation that big money was inflicting on the beautiful game. Others still highlighted how the Super League was only a move for clubs to justify their squandering funds on players: Owners got greedy, chasing an even bigger slice of the TV contracts and advertising pies for themselves.

Few seemed to have learned the other lessons of the Berlusconi-AC Milan parable. In the years before selling, he often complained about how unfair the game was, and called for salary caps and more attention to balance sheets. Money, as even he realized too late, can't solve life's every problem.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Lex Tusk? How Poland’s Controversial "Russian Influence" Law Will Subvert Democracy

The new “lex Tusk” includes language about companies and their management. But is this likely to be a fair investigation into breaking sanctions on Russia, or a political witch-hunt in the business sphere?

Photo of President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda

Polish President Andrzej Duda

Piotr Miaczynski, Leszek Kostrzewski

-Analysis-

WARSAW — Poland’s new Commission for investigating Russian influence, which President Andrzej Duda signed into law on Monday, will be able to summon representatives of any company for inquiry. It has sparked a major controversy in Polish politics, as political opponents of the government warn that the Commission has been given near absolute power to investigate and punish any citizen, business or organization.

And opposition politicians are expected to be high on the list of would-be suspects, starting with Donald Tusk, who is challenging the ruling PiS government to return to the presidency next fall. For that reason, it has been sardonically dubbed: Lex Tusk.

University of Warsaw law professor Michal Romanowski notes that the interests of any firm can be considered favorable to Russia. “These are instruments which the likes of Putin and Orban would not be ashamed of," Romanowski said.

The law on the Commission for examining Russian influences has "atomic" prerogatives sewn into it. Nine members of the Commission with the rank of secretary of state will be able to summon virtually anyone, with the powers of severe punishment.

Under the new law, these Commissioners will become arbiters of nearly absolute power, and will be able to use the resources of nearly any organ of the state, including the secret services, in order to demand access to every available document. They will be able to prosecute people for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed.

Their prerogatives are broader than that of the President or the Prime Minister, wider than those of any court. And there is virtually no oversight over their actions.

Nobody can feel safe. This includes companies, their management, lawyers, journalists, and trade unionists.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest